my only worrie is this go from the child porn issuse and then ends up making it look like all anime is bad sence its not a far jump from Lolis type anime to get to the haerum kind then snow balls from there.

this shit is still going on? this has nothing to do with protecting children at all... no... this is "waaaahhh!!! this thing (lolicon) has offended my narrow minded and tight assed sensitivities so now I want the government to make it go away so I can pretend it doesn't exist!!! waaaahhh!!! it'll happen if I piss and moan load enough!!!". in fact there are things right now that are illegal as we speak for no other reason than because someone complained load enough. the sad thing is in the discussion of if lolicon will become illegal has absolutely nothing to do with who has the facts or who's right. all that matters is who can throw the biggest hissy fit over thier point of view, who can whine into thier microphone the loudest, and who can throw the most money at it, nothing more, nothing less. you just can't give people too much credit... or more like, you can't give people credit at all.

Depictions, fictional or real, in the form of pictures, drawings or even just writings, of individuals under 18 in sexual situations are already illegal in Canada, unless they have scientific value, artistic merit, are family photos, are private works of the imagination created exclusively for oneself, or are created by a married teenage couple for their own private use.

The Canadian Criminal Code defines Child Pornography as "visual representations that show a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of 18 years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity and visual representations, the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of 18 years." and also includes "visual representations and written material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years that would be an offence under the Code"

The Supreme court ruled in the case R v. Sharpe, that "person" includes imaginary or visual children, as well as actual children.

So....... technically, your loli anime kiddy porn is illegal, and can get you jail time for posession.

Definitions of art attempt to make sense of two different sorts of facts: art has important historically contingent cultural features, and it also, arguably, has trans-historical, trans-cultural characteristics that point in the direction of a relatively stable aesthetic core. (Theorists who regard art as an invention of eighteenth-century Europe will, of course, regard this way of putting the matter as tendentious, on the grounds that entities produced outside that culturally distinctive institution do not fall under the extension of “art” and hence are irrelevant to the art-defining project. (Shiner 2001) Whether the concept of art is precise enough to justify this much confidence about what falls under its extension claim is unclear.) Conventionalist definitions take art's cultural features to be explanatorily fundamental, and attempt to capture the phenomena —revolutionary modern art, the traditional close connection of art with the aesthetic, the possibility of autonomous art traditions, etc. — in social/historical terms. Non-conventionalist or “functionalist” definitions reverse this explanatory order, taking a concept like the aesthetic (or some allied concept like the formal, or the expressive) as basic, and aim to account for the phenomena by working that concept harder, perhaps extending it to non-perceptual properties.

So in another word, if one can clearly prove virtual child pornography being a modern art with trans-historical, trans-cultural characteristics that point in the direction of a relatively stable aesthetic(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aesthetic) core, then it can be seen as an artistic merit in Canada. THANK YOU BRAIN!

Ahaha.. Canadian hi-five!

Good to know...*hi-fives* Although I generally don't watch this genre, creating a law to ban intellectual work is just stupid. It's not hurting children directly in fact it doesn't affect them, assuming that they don't read/watch it. In the case that they do, it is by their own freewill. A suppose the government's heart is in the right place, but their means is too narrow minded.

Well, in order to restrict a freedom, like the freedom of expression, an action has to pass the "Oakes test" (in Canada at least). This involves meeting 4 criteria.

1) There must be a reasonable objective to the restriction
2) The restriction must be rationally connected to the objective
3) There must be a minimal impairment of rights
4) There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

Now this is totally my opinion, but this is how I interpret the issue and the test
1) To stop the various effects of kiddy porn on the public, to cease the glorification of sex with a minor
2) Disallowing people from owning virtual kiddy porn shows that practices depicted are unacceptable
3) The limit on freedom of expression is reasonable, and as minimal as possible
4) The restriction and the objective seem proportional

I guess my rule #1 and #2 are a spot shaky, since those are my personal views. You guys use the test as you see fit. None of us are supreme court judges, so... meh...